ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — An Alaska judge on Thursday refused to block a state investigation into whether Gov. Sarah Palin abused her power when she fired her public safety commissioner this summer.
Judge Peter Michalski threw out the lawsuit filed by five Republican state legislators who said the investigation had been tainted by partisan politics and was being manipulated to damage Palin shortly before the Nov. 4 presidential election.
The investigator leading that probe, retired prosecutor Steven Branchflower, is due to release his findings Friday.
On the issue of with holding emails, Sarah Palin has been slapped with a lawsuit.
Abuse of power and secrecy, it's a Republican thing.
6 comments:
Great news. The McCain camp has used more of their resources trying to obstruct this investigation - to include illegally tampering with witnesses (who were prior to that more than willing, even anxious to testify) - than it did to substantively or seriously vet McCain's careless, calculated pick for his second-in-line... to the United States presidency! The question on my mind now is whether Branchflower et al. will extend the investigation past the 10th, using freshly condoned subpoena power to bring uncooperative witnesses in, to assemble as many facts as possible. The 10th is an arbitrary deadline and with the 7 or 8 "new" witnesses, the legislative committee needs a little more time (a week?... what?) to strengthen the case with more testimony and leave less time for the Republicans' long-planned option number two... Which is really rather scary. Another new face? Another "post-convention (-introduction) bounce"? Veru, very scary. Let's make it the 24th... Do I offend?
Holy sh-t! This is too much of a coincedence! I am not a conspiracy theorist by any stretch... Believe me. But consider this: the ruling came on Thursday, before Palin's "stellar" debate performance and after a string of conservative commentators effectively called for Palin to bow out after her "word salad" interview resonses to K. Couric. McCain rushed to Couric's set the night the first portion of that pre-taped (pre-shared) interview was to air, dissing and patently lying to Letterman about catching an immediate flight to D.C. Big distraction. All of it. Then this. So what gives? Whose pocket may the judge be in? Is the McCain camp now relying on a "guilty" Troopergate report to have solid reason to replace Palin, and possibly steal the election in doing so, depending on the choice they advance for VP?
Remember Schmidt is behind the tactical moves of the campaign now, he a Rove protege.
On the other hand all options are on the table. Linking to your referenced AP article also reveals this:
The investigator leading that probe, retired prosecutor Steven Branchflower, is due to release his findings Friday.That release could be blocked by the Alaska Supreme Court, which will hear arguments next week in an emergency appeal by five Republican lawmakers trying to halt Branchflower's report. An Anchorage judge recently dismissed that lawsuit along with an attempt by several of the governor's aides to quash subpoenas issued for their testimony in the Legislature's investigation.
What'll it be?
Wow. Very interesting scenarios. Thanks for the comments. Welcome, Lee.
Thanks, William. Glad to be here. Check Roger Cohen's article in NY Times on Palin, set against the most somber of both current events and historical ones. And in the Caucus, we learn that Palin "knew the answers" to Couric's questions on Supreme Court, etc., all along! She was "irritated" because she didn't like the questions, had the stuff down pat I'm sure we will see this to be the case - if she ever ventures outside of Fox for another interview - for she's promising she'll be more "patient" with interviewers from now on. Now that makes sense! Even the Fox commentator noted she'd likely hit the books to come up with some (halfway intelligent-sounding) answers. I wonder if she had even heard of the Exxon Valdes spill, much less the SCOTUS case, before checking the books...or her advisers. Well I suppose she must have, the case affected her "personally"... This is getting more frightening by the minute. Scary, scary stuff.-Lee
It must feel wonderful living in a fools paradise where you claim to be open minded and have such a moral high ground on conservatives. What is "your" definition of a liberal again? generous, abundant, lavish, broadminded, tolerant, enlightened, charitable, free, advanced
Lets see.
Generous.... Yes with other peoples money.
Abundant... You have me there. Liberals seem to reproduce like rabbits.
Lavish... Absolutely, They have outspent the republicans 5 to 1 in this election.
Broadminded.... Certainly, until you suggest any other world view. Then you are the following: stingy, miserly, reactionary, regressive, bigoted, prejudiced, biased, narrow-minded, strict.
Tolerant... In the famous words of Rahm Emanuel: The Republicans can go F___ themselves. Rahm is a current liberal lawmaker, a part of the corrupt Chicago polical machine, and likely next chief of staff for Obama if he wins the election.
Enlightend... At least in their own minds.
Charitable... Statistically conservatives give more to charity at a ratio of 3 to 1.
Free... True if freedom means more government control over means of production and distribution.
Advanced.... So was the Democratic Socialist Party of Germany, just prior to WW2. I guess only time will tell what they do in they Accomplish in the United States.
ketch,
a fools paradise, you mean like the last 8 yrs of a failed republican administration?
Post a Comment